Finian Cunningham is an Irishman living in the UK, I think, which is no longer part of Europe. He can often be accused of producing summaries or overviews of what other regular ICH contributors are making of the current state of the world, the 'emerging consensus' at ICH, as it were, rather than producing original ideas and analyses of his own. But his articles are often very valuable for all that. On this occasion, as I think the Comments mostly show, he achieves a pretty good balance between opposing interpretations of 'the current facts'. Given the level of abstraction at which he often works there is bound to be some cause for concern about a lack of 'nuance' at times, but on this occasion I can't regard an indignant withdrawal from the ICH community of commentators as being justified. BLM and Antifa and Anon all harbour very real grievances about the way America's overblown 'Land of the Free' self-image compares with the grisly reality, and disappointment, even disgust, at the venality and inhumanity of US institutions at every level can lead to very heated discussion, as they should. But in this article, as it seems to me, the arguments that Mr Cunningham employs, whilst raising a few hackles, have been met with a largely well-thought-out and reasonable and enlightening response from commentators. This is one of the many occasions when I have been grateful for the Comments facility at ICH. It stands out amongst competitors as a fine example of what a Comments facility needs to look like in these fractured times

Not sure Mr O'Toole was "giving...credence to the current political goons who continue to take the world deeper into trouble." He seems to me to have been putting on a useful demonstration of how rhetoric continues to work its questionable wonders in the dramaturgy of politics. His own use of rhetoric for this purpose can be justified if the purpose itself is one that is just. Unveiling the mechanisms by which we are moved to adopt or reject the many and often deeply confused values and policies our 'leaders' seek our support for is an emancipatory project, I would argue. Some of our best contributors at ICH are engaged in it. In their contributions they may never quite reach the heights that Demosthenes and Pericles and Cicero and Edmund Burke and Washington and Lincoln reached. But their rhetoric is generally rooted in moments of genuine indignation at and frustration with those 'leaders' who promise us the earth at election time, only "to take the world deeper into trouble" thereafter.

It is often difficult to tell whether a candidate for high office is genuine in his appeal to the mass of people. Mr O'Toole is surely right to cast suspicions in Obama's and Trump's direction. Both are deeply ambitious creatures. Both are capable of stirring up an audience's emotions. But at heart, we are now entitled to believe, they are hollow men, hollowed out by their avarice and ambition. And Biden, it is evident, is no better. But we should not forget that such creatures are not entirely of their own making. They are the creatures of their handlers (and speech-writers) as much as of themselves. The infamous and immensely experienced Deep State has been busily at work shaping and exploiting the weaknesses of character that Presidents attempt to conceal from voters. Its aim is to corrupt ambitious men to the point that they align themselves with its dark and corrupted vision for humanity's future. Presidents are its instrument, not its overseer. And it is not averse to killing a President that thinks otherwise. It is clear to me that Mr O'Toole is not aligned with that dark and corrupted vision. His final paragraph seems to me entirely incompatible with it. As such it warrants repeated study.

Another wonderfully punchy piece from the ever-feisty Caitlin. If she would only apply her sceptical mind to what used to be called the Global Warming Hoax, whose continuing appeal to the ladies (mostly) is holding her back from a really thorough-going journalism, she might win the much wider readership she deserves.

Excellent piece from Paul Edwards. Once of the most powerful voices on ICH. Makes me want to try out some of his films.

Excellent piece of work here from Caitlin, with just the right balance of factuality and disgust. Whilst it is doubtless true that, as Drew Hunkins says, 'There’s now a segment of our (U.S) population that is TOTALLY immune to any rational and reasonable explanations and facts pertaining to Russia', it is also true that a justified measure of indignation and disgust, when supported by the 'rational and reasonable', has often succeeded in shifting public opinion where reason and logic on their own had failed. All the greatest orators of previous epochs understood this. Burke's 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' is a dazzling display of such understanding.

Caitlin Johnstone is certainly a valuable contributor to the wide-ranging issues discussed on ICH. Her feisty style and sheer energy are doubtless an inspiration to many of us. As an older member of the ICH community (76 at last count), I hope it will not offend if I seek to rein Caitlin in a little on her current campaign on behalf of truth. In general, pursuing the truth and living from day to day as much as possible in its light, is not just good practice, it is an essential cultural component of any community that hopes to have a future. Caitlin has been instrumental in bringing this fact to light. In America, and many other countries today, the increasing resort to and reliance on dishonesty and bare-faced lying in matters of state and in business and in international diplomacy is reaching pandemic proportions. I am thinking of recent performances from the likes of Pompeo, Bolton, Nikki Hayley, and Samantha Power, all of whom appear to think that lying through their teeth 'for the cause' is not merely acceptable but obligatory in a world becoming stripped of anything apart from achieving and projecting personal and national power. But Caitlin, appalled at this trend as so many of us are on ICH, may need to trim her sails a bit when it comes to truth. As an old philosopher I can assure her that truth is one of the most 'essentially contested' concepts of all time. Socrates struggled with the Sophists over it, Medieval Churchmen burned countless sceptics at the stake over it. Military historians soon saw that it was ever 'the first casualty of war'. Resistance fighters in France in WWII learned from bitter experience that sometimes the truth, when raised to the status of absolute value, can result in more, rather than less, human misery in many deeply compromising situations. The standard dilemma in ethics arises when the Gestapo officer asks whether a civilian family is hiding Jews or Maquis or other 'vermin' in their home. The 'correct' answer to this question is not obvious. This reveals that other values may override the value of truth in such situations. Reducing human misery is only one of them. Given her overall liberality of approach to issues, and her view that it is important to avoid 'trying to bend the world to your will', I was surprised at Caitlin's sailing so close to elevating the truth to the status of absolute value, and at her neglect of the extent to which her thesis does actually amount to an attempt to bend the world to her will.

On 17th March on ICH Pepe Escobar referred to "the fact that coronavirus genome variations in Iran and Italy were sequenced and it was revealed they do not belong to the variety that infected Wuhan". This looks like a very important piece of potential evidence. Has anyone here seen anything that is documented or otherwise strongly supports this 'fact' that Pepe refers to? We need rock solid evidence to make the case ICH is beginning to make here on the COVID-19 front.

Excellent piece from an excellent journalist about another excellent journalist. We need both these heroes of speaking truth to power to survive this current attempt to purge the world of all forms of heroism. Julian's torture is the thin end of a very large and carefully fashioned wedge.

Excellent article this by Professor Sharf. Very concise and yet very informative. Looking forward to more contributions from him.

I just submitted a comment and was greeted with the message from someone on this site management team that I have been guilty of an 'invalid nonce'! What on earth is one of those? I have never heard of such a thing, and chasing down the links attached to this 'nonce' message did not prove to be enlightening. Perhaps some other commentator would be kind enough to enlighten me.